Exegesis V08 Issue 009

Exegesis Volume 08 Issue #009

In This Issue:

From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #8

From: dearbornhair
Subject: [e] Re: joan

From: "Jan Sar"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #8

From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: [e] Re: reflections on the status quo

From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #8

From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #7

Exegesis Digest Mon, 04 Aug 2003

Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:49:18 +0200
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #8

Joan, Astrologers say "astrology works" ; foes, anti, skeptics & al. say "it doesn't work". BUT NOBODY'S ASKING, except me and few others :-)) : "WHAT IT IS : 'working' or "no working' for astrology?" I guess : a too difficult question to investigate ...

> >Joan Griffith:
> >Dennis,
> >Very interesting, although you forgot to mention that astrology does not work.

Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: dearbornhair
Subject: [e] Re: joan

may i make a suggestion? if im not mistaken, this is an astrology list. you are probably welcome here, but i dont think youre going to get any of us to debate whether astrology works or not. i think most of us have evolved past this kind of a waste of time. perhaps you could start your own list where you debate whether gravity is relevant.

good luck steven
> >From: "Joan Griffith"
> >Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #7
> >Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 11:13:31 -0400
> >
> >Dennis,
> >Very interesting, although you forgot to mention
> >that astrology does not
> >work.
> >
> >
> >Joan
> >After silence, that which comes nearest to
> >expressing the inexpressible is
> >music. -- Aldous Huxley

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

From: "Jan Sar"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #8
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:18:13 +0000

...Very funny. Joan, you have two choices: 1. unsuscribe; 2. learn astrology. With love... Jan Sar

Canada - 1238 Premier St., North Vancouver, BC, V7J-2H4 tel: (604) 987-6237 Poland - ul. Lubicz32/8, 31-512 Krakow, tel: (012) 431-1036

> >From: Listar
> >Reply-To: Exegesis List
> >To: exegesis digest users
> >Subject: exegesis Digest V8 #8
> >Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 02:00:01 -0500 (EST)
> >
> >exegesis Digest Sun, 03 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 008
> >
> >In This Issue:
> >#1: From: "Joan Griffith"
> >Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #7
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >From: "Joan Griffith"
> >Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #7
> >Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 11:13:31 -0400
> >
> >Dennis,
> >Very interesting, although you forgot to mention that astrology does not
> >work.
> >
> >
> >Joan
> >After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is
> >music. -- Aldous Huxley
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> >http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >End of exegesis Digest V8 #8
> >****************************
> >|| http://exegesis.dyndns.org/exegesis/exegesis.html
> >|| Moderator: exegesis-owner
> >|| To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe exegesis'
> >|| as subject to lists
> >

_________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: [e] Re: reflections on the status quo
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:11:40 +0100

I find myself in general agreement with most of the substance of your = post. There are one or two points I'd like to pick up on.

I think to date the influence of postmodernism on astrology has been = fairly superficial.=20

I would see postmodernism as a transient phase in the evolution of = modernity, providing an opportunity for a re-balancing of perspective after the = tremendous flowering of imperialism/colonialism, rationalism, scientific = materialism, liberal democracy and its shadow forms of communism and fascism, etc. = during the last three centuries or so. It's a difficult phase as so many formerly = reliable reference or anchor points have moved out of focus, which generates the conditions for an interesting blend of freedom and insecurity.=20

One quirky and ironically postmodern reaction to this has been the = emergence of a kind of neo-traditionalism which seeks to either defend or resurrect certainties by appealing to perspectives from earlier eras. As far as = astrology is concerned, I think the re-emergence of traditional horary astrology = and the re-visiting of classical Greek astrology is symptomatic of this.

This is related to the point you made about the embracing of multiple = forms of astrology, or as you put it, the emergence of an astrological pluralism. However, to me this is a superficial development and more an = acknowledgement of astrology's breadth than anything else. To some extent it does act as a = buffer against exploring or contemplating the nature of astrology. It's hard = enough to get to grips with that task for one astrology without having to extend = the modelling to other forms which show significant structural or conceptual differences.=20

This is especially true if one is trying to explain how astrology 'works'= by focusing on its outward form. It would seem to me that if one = acknowledges an astrological pluralism, the first implication of this is that one needs = to downgrade the significance previously attached to the outward form if one= wants to understand astrology's nature. Secondarily, one has to jettison the = notion that astrology can be understood by focusing one's intellect on its tools= and techniques. The emphasis shifts away from structure and mechanism towards process and function.=20

As soon as one makes this shift in emphasis, the astrologer begins to = loom large. To me this is a crucial point. The astrological process emerges = from within the relationship between the astrologer and the contextual = environment. The contextual environment is coloured by cultural factors and also = includes the experience of the natural world. Astrology is not and was not discovered = by astrologers as an objective feature of reality, but is and was = constructed out of experience, evolving through use and the vagaries of cultural dynamics= for better or worse.=20

=46rom this point of view, astrology becomes an 'emergent property' of = humanity's experience of reality and that property finds its expression through = astrologers who create its form. As such, the form it takes is modulated in = accordance with natural variation in the experience of reality which arises between = different cultures and eras.=20

Despite the variation, there is common ground. This is to be found for = example in a common sense of purpose. Astrology arises from the instinct to = recognise or map order in the experience of change. On another level, the significance= of cultural and temporal variables which underlie the differentiation of astrology's outward forms is diminished when one considers the celestial = sphere. The effectively unchanging periodicities of the heavenly motions are = shared and also constitute common ground. Significantly, some of these periodicities determine the way we calibrate our sense of duration and map order onto = our temporal experience.=20

This quantising of time is obviously very useful. The metaphors attached = to time in our language indicate the way we reify it. Time is an object resource.= Thus we say "I don't have much time"; "I can give you five minutes"; "don't = waste my time" and so on. Time is also considered metaphorically in terms of a = container. "It all happened in 15 minutes"; "I was born in the 1930s", etc. Thus = events and change are considered to occur *in* time.

On the other hand, it is hard to visualise how we would experience the = passing of time in the absence of change. We might postulate an objective time associated with duration and an endless sense of the present. All being = and no becoming. In reality we sense time passing because things change. In this respect, rather than saying the change occurs in time, we might suggest = that the subjective experience of time is a function of our experience of change. = In other words, it is change which is primary.

Subjective experience of time has a quality to it as much as it has = quantity. It is not unreasonable to suggest that this experience of time in terms of = both quantity and quality contributes to the notion that the celestial rhythms= which help define and calibrate our sense of duration also carry a qualitative loading. Imaginally, the most obvious connection to make is between the = the way a planetary marker looks or behaves and the subsequent qualities = attributed to its rhythmic cycle.=20

Mars is up there for all to see, and, as is the case if one looks up at = night time now, it is red. The Chinese might see a rabbit in the patterns of = the lunar surface, and westerners might see a human face, but everyone sees the = same changing phases. The influence of the Sun on the quality of experienced = time is self-evident. One might expect a degree of overlap between the root = meanings attributed to planetary symbols within different cultures, though this = might diminish as the symbol's field of meaning is differentiated in ways that = reflect the cultural milieu.

Another important aspect of commonality is the fact that astrologies have emerged from the same species of animal. This may seem a trite = observation, but it is intended to focus attention on a species specific (!) cognitive = capacity. We are symbol-using animals. Does this have a survival value, and if so = what is the relationship between the symbol generating function of our cognitive capacity and the environment to which we are cognitively coupled? Is = there a selection pressure which favours the survival of symbol system = constructions which for some reason produce useful insights within the coupled domain? = Is this a product of a self-organising dynamic within that domain? What are our non-rational faculties for? How important is meaning and how is it = generated?=20

These kinds of ideas and questions are idiosyncratic and have emerged out= of a postmodern sensibility. They are easy enough to ignore or taking sporting= pot shots at on the run. On the other hand to engage with them seriously = requires more than minimal thinking. I don't think that astrologers have taken to postmodernism, least of all because it is an easy option. I think they = have a very passive relationship with it and find it easy enough to assimilate = the notion of astrological pluralism as a token postmodern gesture.=20

The next step though is to consider the implications of such a pluralism = for one's understanding of astrology. On moving down that road, it does not = take too long before one becomes engaged in a struggle to completely re-frame = one's astrological perspectives. Postmodern ways of thinking are completely = subversive when it comes to considering conventional astrological wisdom. The = fragile 'grand narrative' of astrology comes under the spotlight for = deconstruction - it's not enough to settle for a wider set of 'local narratives' and = simply carry on. This is aside from the chronic and in some respects misleading deconstructive influence of mainstream scientific thinking which has = dogged the subject for centuries. I think a small number of astrologers (that I am = aware of) have made some important contributions with regard to this process of deconstruction and re-framing. Juan Revilla comes to mind. I also think = that in the future some highly significant contributions will be made from = outside the discipline (I'm thinking here of those involved in the area where = cognitive studies and semiotics overlap).

The astrology which eventually emerges when modernity equilibrates in the= wake of this postmodern phase will be conceived of quite differently from the fragmented and somewhat chaotic animal lounging around at present. Or so = I believe.

From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #8
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:11:43 +0100

> >Very interesting, although you forgot to mention that astrology does not= =20
> >work.

It's true that astrology doesn't work - it's the astrologer who 'works' = or who does not 'work'.

Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 10:40:14 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #7

> >My own theory has given
> >structural pre-eminence to the number archetypes, of which I have in this
> >list given only partial description so perhaps that is something else I can
> >expand on.
> >

So that I might comment, can you provide a short list of what you believe to be the archetype(s) for each sign? By archetypes, I would mean their significance in terms of progressive stages of human development.